A House subcommittee on Wednesday rejected a Republican-led effort to open up more U.S. coastal waters to oil exploration.

Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., spearheaded the effort. His proposal would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.

But the plan failed Wednesday on a 9-6, party-line vote in a House appropriations subcommittee, which was considering the proposal as part of an Interior Department spending package.

...

Most offshore oil production and exploration has been banned since a federal law passed in 1981.

"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of these problems," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., said during the bill mark-up session.

For his part, Peterson said: "There is no valid reason for Congress to keep the country from energy resources it needs."

"I'm disappointed. I did not expect a partisan vote today. I felt we had a chance of winning this. A lot of Democrats have been talking favorably about my amendment. They know we have to do something. But today was an absolute show of Pelosi power, it was dealt from the top down," Peterson said later, speaking with FOX News, adding he was open to other energy solutions, including wind and solar power.

According to Peterson's office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.

...

"Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices," Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, adding: "With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS should be developed."

Question that seems over-the-top but is actually seriously posed:

Are the Democrats actively trying to drive the country into recession to increase their control of government?

Consider that current oil prices are high due mostly supply and demand, but also due to speculation/fear. There is ever increasing demand and yet no additional supply coming on line in the near future. Most oil-rich countries are pumping as much as they realistically can, or have decided to to not pump so much in order to drive up prices. And the US, meanwhile, flatly refuses to increase its own production.

So there is no downward pressure on future oil prices. All the indicators point up.

It could be that a tweak here and there -- a show that the US will react to soaring oil prices by expanding production -- would pop the speculative balloon that's responsible for, oh, who knows, maybe $25-50 of the cost per barrel of oil. Sensing downside pressure on the prices, the speculators would be more cautious about always bidding up the cost of oil.

But the Democrats seem pretty united on the principle that nothing shall be done to lower the cost of oil.

So far, the US has managed to weather the huge increase in energy prices without slipping into recession. There is a limit, however, to how much such a basic cost of industry and business can rise before the economy reacts violently by reducing output and shedding jobs.

And the Democrats are pushing us right to that point.

They don't have to worry that they'll be blamed for their actions. They have their Liberal Media Spirit Squad to make sure the public believes that oil company profits are solely responsible for the doubling of oil prices over two years.